Binoy Kampmark: Donald Trump at the UN

Donald Trump at the UN

Binoy
Kampmark

It seems to have reached a point of near
exhaustion. What will the President of the United States do
next? The money was on some diplomatic mayhem, a series of
insults, and a trashing of various aspects of the
organisation some Americans regard as a world government.
But Donald Trump surprised those at the United Nations with
a modest tone, and not one the current UN Secretary General
disagrees with.

History provides some context on what
might have been, but it proves to be a poor tool. In terms
of predicting the next Trump move, betting agencies should
be raking in a fortune, the odds always slanted in favour of
the spontaneous and unscripted. He is a creature that abides
by winds of unchecked strength and volatility, a true
Aeolian spirit.

With Trump, matters with the UN, as with
so much else, had been personal. He failed, for instance, in
winning a contract to refurbish its New York headquarters in
the early 2000s, claiming that he could do the job at a
third of the price (half-a-billion as opposed to the
projected cost of $1.5 billion). Given the organisation’
insatiable appetite for self-perpetuation and growth, this
was a blow indeed.

Prior to heading to the White House,
Trump mined the quarries of American resentment, sharpening
the America First line which entailed putting the UN last.
The organisation, he asserted, was no “friend of
democracy”, inimical to freedom, and even unfriendly to
the United States.

To show his disdain for all matters
UN, he took the unilateral position to take the US out of
the Paris climate agreement, only to then suggest the
possibility of remaining on renegotiated terms. Trumpland
lends itself to fickle refrains and adjustments, booming
promises and drastic revisions.

The opening words in his
UN address promised some customarily cringe worthy
entertainment. For one, pronouncing the name of the
Secretary General António Guterres seemed a bit beyond him,
the emphasis all too strong on “Gutter” followed by
“ez”.

Then there was that little matter of real
estate. “I actually saw great potential right
across the street,” he explained in the context of Trump
Tower’s proximity to the UN building. “[I]t was only
for the reason that the United Nations was here that it
turned out to be such a successful project.” Then came
modest, almost banal reflection. Had the voice of
moderation seeped into Trump?

“In recent years, the
United Nations has not reached its full potential because of
bureaucracy and mismanagement.” Hardly a clanger, and
certainly one the grand poobahs would agree with. “We
encourage the secretary general to fully use his authority
to cut through the bureaucracy, reform outdated systems, and
make firm decisions to advance the UN’s core
mission.”

Rather than unleashing withering salvos, Trump
had time to afford a few carefully chosen words of sugary
praise. “The United Nations was founded on truly noble
goals.” These goals, in turn had been advanced “in so
many ways: feeding the hungry, providing disaster relief,
and empowering women and girls in many societies across the
world.”

Trump’s accommodating tone has as much to do
with necessity as anything else. While boisterous
unilateralism might work on some domestic level, Washington
has required the assistance of other UN member states to
push such agendas as the containment of North Korea.

“The net result,” writes Richard Gowan, “is that a
president who once promised a unilateralist, or outright
isolationist, foreign policy, is leaning hard on the
world’s main multilateral body to manage the main crisis
on the agenda.” Problematic a beast as it might be, the
body is providing, on some level, indispensable.

The
reform agenda remains problematic, because any such agenda
always has trouble sailing through the behemoth that is the
UN. Where states are involved, interests will conflict.
Bureaucracies will also battle cutters of the red tape. The
old issues persist: the burden of dues paid by wealthier
countries; the scepticism of poorer states that such
efficiency policies are cover for bullying and undue
influence.

Trump’s points, to that end, seem matters of
aspiration rather than functional realities. “To honour
the people of our nations, we must ensure that no one and no
member state shoulders a disproportionate share of the
burden, and that’s militarily or financially.”

Peacekeeping missions, asserted the president, should
also be seen in terms of “defined goals and metrics for
evaluating success.” All to the good, till these make it
to the nigh impossible task of implementation. The UN can
only be as good, or as efficient, as what its members want
to make it.

In response to the challenges facing Scoop and the media industry we’ve instituted an Ethical Paywall to keep the news freely available to the public.
Organisations whose staff use Scoop at work need to be licensed through a ScoopPro subscription under this new model, these users get access to exclusive news tools.
If you love Scoop you can also support through a monthly donation as a Foundation Supporter.

With three different medical cannabis bills submitted to parliament in 2018, there are good and bad elements of all three. There are also very dangerous and unjust intentions behind National’s new Bill... More>>

Alastair Thompson writes: While the fairer intellectual disciplines Science, the Arts and Academia continue to be generously funded by Government, philanthropists and billionaires alike, Journalism of the routine kind - which has for three centuries provided the information infrastructure upon which a pluralist democracy is based - is fast disappearing in a fog of fake news. So then, this is Scoop’s call to arms... More>>

ALSO:

Civility’s the prime virtue: it really can’t be beat / To fail to be pleasant is to court certain defeat. / I know that it requires restraint (they deal in hate, and fear) / But we shan’t get far – shall we? – if Civility’s not there! More>>